Skip to comments.
Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?
Crisis Magazine ^
| November 24, 2014
| DENNIS BONNETTE
Posted on 11/24/2014 1:07:14 PM PST by NYer
![the-fall-of-man-hendrick-goltzius](http://3m7ajlsrzj92lfd1hu16hu7vc.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/the-fall-of-man-hendrick-goltzius-660x350-1416812166.jpg)
Pure myth! That is todays typical view of a literal Adam and Eve. Yet, contrary to current skepticism, a real Adam and Eve remain credibleboth in terms of Catholic doctrine and sound natural science.
By calling the Genesis story a myth, people avoid saying it is mere fantasy, that is, with no foundation in reality at all. While rejecting a literal first pair of human parents for all mankind, they hope to retain some deeper truth about an original sinful human condition, a mythic meaning. They think that the latest findings in paleoanthropology and genetics render a literal pair of first true human parents to be scientifically impossible.
The prevailing assumption underlying media reports about human origins is that humanity evolved very gradually over vast periods of time as a population (a collection of interbreeding organisms), which itself originally evolved from a Homo/Pan (human/chimpanzee) common ancestor millions of years ago. Therefore, we are not seen as descendants of the biblical Adam and Eve.
This universal evolutionary perspective leads many Catholics and others to conclude that a literal Adam and Eve is “scientifically impossible” for two reasons: First, paleoanthropologists deny the sudden appearance of intelligent, self-reflective, fully-human primates, but rather view the emergence of consciousness and intelligence as taking place slowly and incrementally over long periods of time. Second, in light of recent findings in molecular biology, especially from studies based on genetic data gleaned from the Human Genome Project, it is claimed that the hominin population (the primate group from which modern man is said to have arisen) has never had a bottleneck (reduced population) of a single mating pair in the last seven or more million years: no literal Adam and Eve. Many succumb to the modernist tendency to “adjust” Church teaching to fit the latest scientific claimsthus intimidating Catholics into thinking that divinely revealed truths can be abandonedif need be.
This skepticism of a literal Adam and Eve begs for four much needed corrections.
First, Church teaching about Adam and Eve has not, and cannot, change. The fact remains that a literal Adam and Eve are unchanging Catholic doctrine. Central to St. Paul’s teaching is the fact that one man, Adam, committed original sin and that through the God-man, Jesus Christ, redemption was accomplished (Romans 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15: 21-22). In paragraphs 396-406, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, speaks of Adam and Eve as a single mating pair who “committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state (CCC, 404). Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle (CCC, 405). The doctrines surrounding original sin cannot be altered without undermining the mystery of Christ (CCC, 389).
Today, many think that Pope Pius XIIs encyclical Humani generis did not definitively exclude theological polygenism. What they fail to notice, though, is that the Holy Father clearly insists that Scripture and the Magisterium affirm that original sin proceeds from a sin truly committed by one Adam [ab uno Adamo] and that this sin is transmitted to all true human beings through generation (para. 37). This proves that denial of a literal Adam (and his spouse, Eve) as the sole first genuinely human parents of all true human beings is not theologically tenable.
Second, rational human nature itself requires that mankind made an instant appearance on planet Earth. Paleoanthropological claims of gradual appearance of specifically human traits fail to comport with a true philosophy of human nature. Reflecting classical Christian thought, St. Thomas Aquinas demonstrates that true man is distinguished essentially from lower animals by possession of an intellectual and immortal soul, which possesses spiritual powers of understanding, judgment, and reasoning (Summa theologiae I, 75). While these qualitatively superior abilities are manifested through special forms of tool making or culture or art, they need not always be evident in the paleontological record. Sometimes true men share mere animal survival behavior and sometimes truly human behavior is lost to modern sight due to the ravages of time. What matters is that genuinely spiritual powers are either present or not, and that these alone bespeak the presence of true man. Irrational animals, including subhuman primates, are capable of complex sentient behaviors often approaching or imitating the rational activities of true man. But an animal either possesses a spiritual, intellectual soul or not. Thus at some point in time, true man suddenly appearswhether visible to modern science or not. Before that time, all subhuman behavior manifests merely material sensory abilities. The fact that positivistic scientists cannot discern the first presence of true man is hardly remarkable.
Third, a correct understanding of the scientific (inductive) method reveals that it cannot ever logically exclude the possibility of two sole founders of humanity. Natural scientific studies employ the inductive method of reasoning. Empirically observed data is employed to form testable hypotheses. Molecular biologists use computer models in an attempt to validate such hypotheses and reach conclusions about genetic conditions in early primate populations. In this process, some researchers have committed the logically invalid move of inferring from particular data to the universally negative claim that a literal Adam and Eve is impossible. Such methodology produces, at best, solely probable conclusions, based on available evidence and the assumptions used to evaluate the data. There is the inherent possibility that an unknown factor will alter the conclusion, similarly as was the unexpected discovery of black swans in Australia, when the whole world knew all swans were white.
Fourth, specific scientific arguments against Adam and Eve have proven not as forceful as many presently believe (Gauger 2012). For example, some have claimed that effective population size estimates for the last several million years would not permit just two true humans to have lived during that time. Still, the technical concept of average effective population size estimates should not be confused with an actual bottleneck (a temporarily reduced population) which may be much smaller. Effective population size estimates can vary from as high as 14,000 (Blum 2011) to as low as 2,000 (Tenesa 2007), depending on the methods used.
Such calculations rely upon many assumptions about mutation rate, recombination rate, and other factors, that are known to vary widely. All of this entails retrospective calculations about events in the far distant past, for which we have no directly verifiable data. For such reasons, some experts have concluded that effective population size cannot be determined using DNA sequence differences alone (Sjödin 2005; Hawks 2008).
Indeed, the most famous genetic study proclaimed as a scientific objection to Adam and Eve turned out to be based on methodological errors. An article by geneticist Francisco J. Ayala appearing in the journal, Science (1995), led many to believe that a founding population of only two individuals was impossible. Ayala based his challenge to monogenism (two sole founders of humanity) on the large number of versions (alleles) of the particular gene HLA-DRB1, which are present in the current population. Accepting the common ancestor theory, he claimed that there were thirty-two ancient lineages of the HLA-DRB1 gene prior to the Homo/Pan split (approximately seven million years ago). Over time, these pre-split lineages, themselves, evolved into the new additional versions present today. Because each individual carries only two versions of a gene, a single founding pair could not have passed on the thirty-two versions that Ayala claimed existed some seven million years agoeither at that time or at any time since. A bottleneck of just two true humans, Adam and Eve, was scientifically impossible.
However, Ayala’s claim of thirty-two ancient HLA-DRB1 lineages (prior to the Homo/Pan split) was wrong because of methodological errors. The number of lineages was subsequently adjusted by Bergström (1998) to just seven at the time of the split, with most of the genetic diversity appearing in the last 250,000 years. A still later study coming out of Bergströms group inferred that just four such lineages existed more than five million years ago, but that a few more appeared soon thereafter (von Salomé 2007). While two mating hominins can transmit four lineages, the few additional later ones still require explanation.
These genetic studies, based on many assumptions and use of computer models, do not tell us how the origin of the human race actually took place. But, they do show (1) that methodological limitations and radical contingency are inherent in such studies, which are employed to make retroactive judgments about deeply ancient populations that can never be subject to direct observation, and (2) that present scientific claims against the possibility of a literal Adam and Eve are not definitive (Gauger 2012, 105-122).
Philosopher Kenneth W. Kemp and others have suggested that interbreeding between true humans and subhuman primates in the same biological population might account for presently observed genetic diversity (Kemp 2011). Such interbreeding is not to be confused with the marriages between true human siblings and cousins which would have occurred in the first generations following Adam and Eve, which unions were a necessary part of Gods plan for the initial propagation of mankind (Gen. 1:28).
The difficulty with any interbreeding solution (save, perhaps, in rare instances) is that it would place at the human races very beginning a severe impediment to its healthy growth and development. Natural law requires that marriage and procreation take place solely between a man and a woman, so that children are given proper role models for adult life. So too, even if the union between a true human and a subhuman primate were not merely transitory, but lasting, the defective parenting and role model of a parent who is not a true human being would introduce serious disorder in the proper functioning of the family and education of children. Hence, widespread interbreeding is not an acceptable solution to the problem of genetic diversity.
Moreover, given the marked reduction in the number of ancient HLA-DRB1 alleles found by the later genetic studies of Bergström and von Salomé, it may turn out that no interbreeding is needed at all, or at most, that very rare instances of it may have occurred. Such rare events might not even entail the consent of true human beings, since they could result from an attack by a subhuman male upon a non-consenting human female.
A literal Adam and Eve remains rationally, scientifically credible.
Since the same God is author both of human reason and of authentic revelation, legitimate natural science, properly conducted, will never contradict Catholic doctrine, properly understood. Catholic doctrine still maintains that a literal Adam and Eve must have existed, a primal couple who committed that personal original sin, which occasioned the need for, and the divine promise of, the coming of the Redeemer, Jesus Christ.
Editors note: The image above is a detail from The Fall of Man painted by Hendrik Goltzius in 1616.
TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Religion & Science; Theology
KEYWORDS: adam; adamandeve; creation; crevo; crevolist; eve; evolution; fazalerana; gardenofeden; genesis; hughross; originalparents; origins
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 781-800, 801-820, 821-840 ... 1,041-1,053 next last
To: Partisan Gunslinger; CatherineofAragon
>> “If it’s not obvious to you, then nothing would be clear to you.” <<
.
If ever there was a childish response, that one wins the trophy.
Enjoy your racism and false prophecy!
Read 1John some time, and learn why Matthew 7:23 is there.
.
801
posted on
11/29/2014 4:12:44 PM PST
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: Partisan Gunslinger; CatherineofAragon; redleghunter
Arnold was not popular with the rest of the Christian world just as I am not popular here with you all. That's okay, we still win in the end. Curious...that's the SAME defense given by every founder of heretical cults since heretical cults started forming. "The rest of the Christians don't like us or what we preach so that means we MUST be right. Jesus said we would suffer persecution and we are so we must be the REAL deal.". That really ISN'T a good indicator.
Rather than any cult being "the winner" in the end, we know that it is Jesus Christ who will win in the end and not a tiny, set-apart group that imagines they alone know the real truth.
Relax, you aren't being persecuted, nobody is coming for you to burn you at the stake. This is a forum where people can freely discuss what they believe and why they believe it. Don't be surprised if your novel doctrines are challenged WITH the only sure and authoritative resource we ALL have - the sacred and Divinely-inspired Scriptures. Being defensive and obstinate because of pride is not the way to learn what is truth. Instead of merely mouthing what some guy told you is true, ask the Holy Spirit to illuminate God's word to your heart - all of it - study, meditate and wait for the Lord to reveal His truth to you. He will NOT let you down.
802
posted on
11/29/2014 4:55:14 PM PST
by
boatbums
(God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
To: Partisan Gunslinger
You didn’t answer the subject. If the Israelites are not Jews/Hebrews then who are they?
The Brits?
803
posted on
11/29/2014 7:42:19 PM PST
by
redleghunter
(But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
To: FourtySeven
There’s no “fighting amongst” going on here. We are addressing error if you read the posts. Or do you agree Eve had sex with the serpent in the Garden.
804
posted on
11/29/2014 7:45:09 PM PST
by
redleghunter
(But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
To: Partisan Gunslinger
47 is Roman Catholic. So you have something in commom?
805
posted on
11/29/2014 7:45:51 PM PST
by
redleghunter
(But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
To: Partisan Gunslinger
Where are the 7000 in Revelation? OT prophecies? Teachings of Christ?
One verse out of context does not make an exegesis.
806
posted on
11/29/2014 8:00:19 PM PST
by
redleghunter
(But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
To: Partisan Gunslinger
I'll post the reference again;
"I am a servant of the living God that carries the end time message, and it's either time to wake up now, or go down with your boat, friend". (The Shepherd's Chapel Questions and Answers period, aired 5-16-91)
807
posted on
11/29/2014 8:32:49 PM PST
by
redleghunter
(But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
To: Partisan Gunslinger
You stated what I posted was a falsehood. On the subject of the Trinity. It is up to you now to provide Murray’s actual reviews if indeed I am in error.
808
posted on
11/29/2014 8:34:44 PM PST
by
redleghunter
(But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
To: Partisan Gunslinger; CatherineofAragon
I will openly agree with Arnold's critics when they're right, as I have on this thread the last few posts. No cult of personality here.
>>I wonder if his followers were afraid he would launch into one of his angry tirades against them, and call them losers, yo-yos, idiots, etc., as he did with all of his detractors. Fine Christian witness, that.<<
I love it when he does that! He tried to pull his gun on a disruptor one time, it was great. lol Would you have the courage to directly confront Murray about those 10% of things you disagree with him? How would being called a loser, yo-yo, idiot, etc. make YOU feel? Would you LOL it off as great??? Somehow, he doesn't strike me as a person that appreciates being disagreed with. Would he say you were disqualified from being in his select 7000 because you weren't 100% convinced???
809
posted on
11/29/2014 8:38:38 PM PST
by
boatbums
(God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
To: Partisan Gunslinger
That you're making these false accusations and you don't even know his name, his name is Arnold, not Arthur. Auto correct must be a Kenite invention.
If you accuse what I posted is false show us here some actual quotes from the transcripts of his sermons. Should be easy for a 7000 insider to cough up some copies.
Show us.
810
posted on
11/29/2014 8:39:29 PM PST
by
redleghunter
(But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
To: editor-surveyor
The use of “I’s” and “I am” frequently in one paragraph shows much.
811
posted on
11/29/2014 8:41:04 PM PST
by
redleghunter
(But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
To: Partisan Gunslinger; CatherineofAragon; redleghunter
There are more than a few "prophecies" Murray claims to be right about. He makes some startling predictions about genuine Christians who disagree with him. From his site's Statement of Faith, he says:
We believe the seventh trump sounds after the tribulation (Matthew 24: 29-31). Paul wrote his second letter to the Thessalonians because he knew the first had been misunderstood, concerning Jesus Christ's second return. Paul then gives two signs which will be present when the Day of the Lord comes. Those signs being the apostasy and the man of lawlessness. Neither of these signs were present at that time. Apostasy means giving up or renouncing of one's professed principles, or faith. This will come to pass when the religious lamb (false messiah) of Revelation 13:11 comes to pass. He will look like the Lamb of God, but his voice is of the dragon, for he is the great dragon, that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan (Revelation 12:9). When the false christ stands in the holy place performing in the sight of Christians, the pretribulation-rapture-Christian shall think it is Jesus Christ coming to rapture them away. It is the duty of the elect to stand and witness in the synagogues, allowing the Holy Spirit to give His Message to the world through you. (Mark 13:9).
Jesus Christ is your spiritual Husband. You should remain a spiritual virgin until He returns (II Corinthians 11:2). For Jesus Christ Himself said; "Woe to them that are with child in those days!" (Mark 13:17). If your spiritual Husband has been on a long journey and finds you with child when He returns, then you have been impregnated (deceived) with the mark of the false messiah, and worshipped Satan in the last hour. Study God's Word. http://www.shepherdschapel.com/statement-of-faith.cfm
He's just wrong, very wrong about this, too.
812
posted on
11/29/2014 8:57:56 PM PST
by
boatbums
(God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
To: redleghunter
So what was that original ‘sin’. I won't quote Arnold Murray, which I do think that he has returned to the Maker that sent him.
Does your Bible say that a slithering snake served up an apple to Eve and she share with her new hubby and wallah la they both realize they were naked? Hmmmm????
Paul has much to say in contrast to the physical sin at the Garden Party and the coming spiritual sin of those filled with the tribulation of deception. I get the impression that what the Creator had Moses pen in Genesis is just not acceptable to the majority of modern Christians. No wonder we have the abomination of evolution given credibility by the new age Christians.
813
posted on
11/29/2014 9:05:32 PM PST
by
Just mythoughts
(Jesus said Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
To: Partisan Gunslinger; boatbums; editor-surveyor; daniel1212
I do remember him saying his ministry is the Elijah ministry of the end times. That's not saying he's a prophet of course. I'd say I agree with him there. If only 7000 are not going to be fooled by Satan, I would guess most of those 7000 are Arnold's students. No other church teaches God's Word in a manner that prepares them to spot the antiChrist when he arrives.
Well what I quoted came from a 1991 sermon.
Ok on the issue of the 7000. Who told you were one of the 7000? If you are one of the 7000 (as you asserted such earlier); and it is your mission not to be deceived in the end times, do you deem we are in the end times? If so which seal are we witnessing?
No other church teaches God's Word in a manner that prepares them to spot the antiChrist when he arrives.
Really? Seems Paul prepared the Thessalonians quite well. We have what we need to know from Jesus Christ and His apostles.
2 Thessalonians 2 King James Version (KJV)
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.(KJV)
It's only when people come along saying "only some can know" or an "elect few have the privilege" that we come to the warnings of false prophets, and Synagogues of Satan. Go ask Rome. Their church revolves on an axis of a special class of saints and a clergy with the power to change elements even though they don't change. Also to tell people their church is the only infallible source of truth claims. Shepherds Chapel has found a friend in Rome.
814
posted on
11/29/2014 9:07:55 PM PST
by
redleghunter
(But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
To: editor-surveyor
Yes the Apostle John penned Revelation. Thought that was pretty much prophetic.
815
posted on
11/29/2014 9:09:14 PM PST
by
redleghunter
(But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
To: boatbums
So what is the first tribulation? Course Christ was rather specific in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. D E C E P T I O N... Recently we had a infamous MIT economists call a segment of Americans ‘stupid’ because they believed a healthcare LIE. Do you know who the fake messiah is? Christ did and so did Paul.
816
posted on
11/29/2014 9:14:20 PM PST
by
Just mythoughts
(Jesus said Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
To: Partisan Gunslinger; editor-surveyor; boatbums
Sometime before 2068. I would guess right around 2020. Only God knows the date but we are allowed to know the season.
Last I checked, guessing is not a duty description for a prophet. When Arnold passed away earlier this year who took his Elijah "prophet office."
Would you agree a prophet of God must be 100% correct?
817
posted on
11/29/2014 9:15:44 PM PST
by
redleghunter
(But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
To: Partisan Gunslinger; editor-surveyor
Did Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God rise on the third day after His death with a Glorified Body? Meaning was the Resurrection of His body or was it of Spirit only?
818
posted on
11/29/2014 9:18:22 PM PST
by
redleghunter
(But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
To: Partisan Gunslinger; CatherineofAragon
Because it is written in Rom 11:4
Exegesis is very important. Is Paul specifically pointing to a future time where 7000 stand strong against antichrist? No he is not looking at the verse literally, plainly.
Using your own metric of "verse by verse, chapter by chapter, book by book" where else in the NT do we see clear evidence of a 7000 number of stand outs?
819
posted on
11/29/2014 10:07:53 PM PST
by
redleghunter
(But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
To: CatherineofAragon
Christianity doesn't teach that only 7000 will stand firm against the AntiChrist; yet Murray claims it and you accept it. Why? Specifically the Scriptures do not teach such.
820
posted on
11/29/2014 10:10:17 PM PST
by
redleghunter
(But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 781-800, 801-820, 821-840 ... 1,041-1,053 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson